![]() Disinformation is often designed to exploit these algorithms, being emotive to attract user engagement. ![]() Rather than showing a chronological view of posts, most platforms now use personalised algorithms, designed to show users the most relevant and engaging content. More important is how disinformation is amplified. Though they each have different acceptable use policies, online platforms do not typically ban all disinformation, both because identifying misleading material is difficult and to protect freedom of speech. But – perhaps because regulating foreign tech firms is easier than tackling problems with some of the EU’s own media outlets – lawmakers remain focused on the importance of online platforms. Conversely, most users of social media are exposed to a wide diversity of opinions. More polarised people are less likely to use social media – being older, they tend to rely on newspapers and TV. As the Kremlin propagated lies about its invasion of Ukraine, for example, this evidence allowed the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to quickly name these strategies publicly and correct false information.ĭisinformation is hardly limited to the online world. The EU’s 2020 European Democracy Action Plan also established a framework for collecting evidence about foreign disinformation campaigns. The EU’s European External Action Service (EEAS) also set up strategic communications divisions, known as the StratCom Task Forces. For example, the EU’s 2018 Action Plan against Disinformation focused on identifying disinformation, supporting independent media and fact-checkers, and promoting media literacy. Instead, the EU has sought to curb the impact of lies peddled online in ways which preserve free speech. Despite the EU’s recent decision to ban Russian media outlets Russia Today and Sputnik from broadcasting in the EU, policy-makers generally recognise that simply banning disinformation is not a realistic or desirable option. And the distinction between ‘fake news’ and ‘legitimate opinion’ is often contested. Freedom of expression includes the right to express incorrect views. In the EU, spreading false or misleading information is not generally illegal. These powers would undermine the careful compromises law-makers have already agreed in the DSA – and risk making platforms’ responses to disinformation worse. As law-makers finalise the DSA, the European Commission has begun insisting it needs stronger powers to direct how platforms tackle disinformation during crises. The DSA forces large platforms to be more transparent and accountable for tackling disinformation. This flood of disinformation comes as the EU is finalising the Digital Services Act (DSA), a major new law designed to regulate online platforms, including social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and TikTok which are used to disseminate disinformation. Platforms like Twitter, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram have been flooded with Putin’s lies about the ‘Nazification’ of Ukraine. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the latest battleground online. Europe’s rivals, in particular Russia and China, use disinformation campaigns as low-cost and low-risk methods to foment dissent and promote their preferred narratives about these issues in the EU. It has contributed to many of the EU’s recent challenges: panic about immigration, the rise of the far right and left, Islamophobia, vaccine hesitancy and Brexit. Online disinformation – material propagated with the intention to mislead – is a serious threat to the EU. The Commission’s last-minute proposal for stricter regulation of tech platforms during crises undermines this balance. In negotiating the Digital Services Act, EU law-makers balanced tackling disinformation with protecting free speech.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |